209 похожих чатов

It’s tragic to see the fall out between the SC

and SNET. They were elected to promote decentralisation and the fact that they were not consulted before hand is a very valid argument. Either don’t preach decentralisation or follow the phase 2 WP.

In an ideal scenario all the details of the merger would have been discussed before hand and opened for community vote thereafter.

The voting portal being down is also a major problem and does not brew trust.

And Re SDAO wallet has this been fact checked ?

4 ответов

10 просмотров

How is your paper doing?

voting portal will be sorted - its pretty late at night - lets not start accusing anything silly there SC were not consulted because this was a matter outside their perview - it is a shame that it couldnt have been another way, but it couldnt not sure if its been checked in terms of wallets - but again, if token holders can vote, token holders can vote - at least i believe so - you cant have it both ways

Okz- Автор вопроса
Jon - Will never DM you
voting portal will be sorted - its pretty late at ...

It’s not an accusation Jon it just not a good look I don’t think we have to debate that And about the SC, in that case the phase 2 WP needs a factory reset because it doesn’t represent the project currently. And going forward I think we need a separate vote on foundation wallets being able to engage with votes

Okz
It’s not an accusation Jon it just not a good look...

fair time changes things - probably does need an update yea i think there is a disaprity here in team vs foundation wallets - im not arguing that the wallet holding the treasury tokens should be allowed to vote - but any team member should be - even trump can vote for himself 😉

Похожие вопросы

Обсуждают сегодня

Карта сайта